Featuring Kingston Hill Academy Charter School in Rhode Island

March 21, 2016

On March 20, 2016, I published this post, entitled, “Charter School Choice Could Involve Forfeiting Student Civil Rights.”

Note that in the title, I included the word, “could.” It is a word indicating possibility, and the details included in my post do support my assertion that both charter approval and regulation tend to be sloppy.

I heard from a concerned Rhode Island charter advocate who called my post “stereotypical” and who stated that what I did amounted to taking an issue from one charter school and generalizing that issue to all charter schools. I am not sure how someone could have read my post and assumed this. However, what I thought I would do is present details on the charter situation with which this individual is connected.

KHA is only one of two charter schools located in South Kingston. It also draws students from North Kingston and Chariho school districts.

KHA is not part of a charter chain; it is not a “no excuses” school, and it does not cater to Teach for America (TFA) recruits. The school is not fly-by-night; it is not for-profit, and it is not hedge-funded, and it is not plagued by scandal.

Let me also note that KHA clearly delineates it discipline policy in its Student Parent Handbook. Furthermore, the policy appears to comply with state regulations and offers an appeals process.

In fall 2014, KHA petitioned the state board to increase its enrollment beyond the chartered maximum of 180 students in grades K-5 and to expand its facility. Again, as of 2015-16, KHA has not expanded to grades 6 through 8.

Now, let’s more closely examine some demographics of KHA and nearby traditional public school districts of South Kingston, North Kingston, and Chariho (Chariho serves the communities of Charlestown, Richmond, and Hopkinton in southern Rhode Island).

Indeed, KHA and surrounding districts do not exactly mirror the state of Rhode Island, which has 47 percent of students on free/reduced lunch, 7 percent ESL/bilingual students, and 15 percent receiving special education services. The state is 60 percent white (24 percent Hispanic; 4 percent multi-racial; 8 percent African American; one percent Native American, and 3 percent Asian).

According to 2010-14 census data, Rhode Island’s median household income was $56,423. Chariho’s was $68,904 for Charleston; $96,533 for Richmond, and $71,636 for Hopkinton. South Kingston’s median household income was $72,021, and North Kingston’s was $80,506.

As for per capita income, Rhode Island’s state average in 2010-14 was $30,765. Chariho’s was $35,091 for Charleston; $37,619 for Richmond, and $34,929 for Hopkinton. South Kingston’s median household income was $33,669, and North Kingston’s was $39,869.

Thus, in many respects, KHA is not a typical American charter school. The traditional school districts from which KHA draws its students are not even typically representative of the public school student population of Rhode Island.

On its website, KHA features its 2015 PARCC results as compared to the state of Rhode Island. In ELA, for grades 3, 4 and 5, KHA advertises 77 percent proficiency, compared to 36 percent for the state. In math, for grades 3, 4, and 5, KHA shows 58 percent proficiency, as compared to 25 percent for the state.

Thus, KHA is not a school of choice in which parents are “escaping failing schools”; however, one must wonder about the fiscal tipping point for feeder districts if KHA enrollment expands.

The reality is that as students leave a traditional school district for charters, funding also leaves those districts, and all school maintenance cannot simply be reduced on a per-student basis. No matter if I have 10 students or 30 students in any given class, the cost to run my lights and air remains constant. Therefore, as my enrollment decreases, other cuts must be made– or the lost funding must be designated from elsewhere.

And so, the question looms regarding how far choice can go before the traditional district can no longer sustain itself. It seems that KHA is planning to slowly expand. Furthermore, KHA is only one of a few charters in the state of Rhode Island, a state with a cap of 35 charters. In that regard, Rhode Island is not typical, as many states have no cap on the number of charters allowed.

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) takes issue with Rhode Island’s charter cap. NAPCS also takes issue with Rhode Island’s not allowing virtual charters*; not allowing for multiple authorizers; having no provision for adequate authorizer funding; providing no exemption from state teacher certification requirements; having no provision for multiple schools to be linked under a single contract, and offering no laws or regulations to explicitly allow charter school students in schools not providing extra-curricular and interscholastic activities to have access to those activities at non-charter public schools for a fee by a mutual agreement. (There’s more, but I’ll stop here.)

NAPCS ranks Rhode Island’s charter school law as pretty low: 35 out of 43.

Scandal-ridden Ohio it rates as 23 out of 43. (Some of what NAPCS does not like: “[Ohio charter law] does not provide additional application elements specific to conversion schools and replications. It also does not require authorizers to issue requests for proposals, to thoroughly evaluate each application including an in-person interview and a public meeting, to make all charter approval and denial decisions in a public meeting, and to state reasons for denials in writing.”)

Louisiana, it loves: 4 out of 43. (It would like Louisiana better if the state offered grant or loan programs for charter school facilities, or if the state provided optional enrollment preference for children of a school’s founders, governing board members, and full-time employees, for example.)

New York, NAPCS also loves: 7 out of 43. (It doesn’t like NY’s authorization, though: “The law does not provide for funding for the authorizing work of local school district authorizers and the State Board of Regents, does not require authorizers to publicly report detailed authorizer expenditures, does not require a separate contract for any services purchased from an authorizer by a school, and does not prohibit authorizers from requiring schools to purchase services from them.”)

Feel free to look up NAPCS take on any of the 43 states allowing charters here.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

The state charter regulations that lead to high ratings need to be exposed so that the extent of the raiding of public funds and non-public agenda is more apparent. Thanks for including the link and close analysis of charters in the smallest state.

Thank you for your very informative and enlightening article. I agree with most of it except this one statement: “NAPCS also takes issue with Rhode Island’s not allowing virtual charters.”
RI has virtual schools. Warwick, RI just put one in their district. As for your assertion that “both charter approval and regulation tend to be sloppy,” you hit the nail on the head for in this corrupt state there are connections to get what you want. And RI is run by a charter-privatization raimondo team(hubbyMoffit/former Texas TFA-er, now McKinsey & Co. Ed consultant;Stefan Pryor of Commerce – the co-owner of Armistad & Achievement First,Lieu gov Dan McKee big time charter pusher since he was the Cumberland Mayoral director/owner of Blackstone Prep Academy, then raimondo herself -a charter supporter. As for this North Kingston KHA charter school, again you hit the nail on the head as you stated it’s “atypical” –> it is located in a-wealthier type town where student population is no way like Prov or Central Fall’s-with poverty and + immigrants-(possible illegals) and special needs is not as prevalent as in the northern part of RI.NK is a higher socio- economic district;in my opinion, this school is a glorified private school located in an area where it draws students from those towns closest to Conn.-a wealthier area– not your typical RI charter location area at all!

Also, note the school is “owned” by the Groden Center and packs the board with Groden members and voted its parent company a NO_BID contract. The board itself votes on members so there are no elections, and the CEO of the parent company has publicly stated that no matter the “board” may decide, the parent company has final say (in violation of RI state law about public school boards, but hey, those rules don’t apply to charters..)

Despite all this, it is running perpetual deficits (it lied – this is easily proven by looking at its REAL audit versus the one it handed to the state in its expansion request), has been shown to be going around lottery enrollment to reduce Spec Ed students, has multiple Title IX/OCR investigations against it, and fired its Asst Principal/unilaterally cut salaries (telling those involved 2 days before the budget meeting).

It has put IEP/SPED management and teaching on one person (good luck with that if your child has an IEP); cut art/music, and is begging parents to carpool to cut busing costs.

The state REFUSES to do a ‘school to school’ comparison that would show your point – kids are coming from high performing schools for the most part and parents go to KHA mainly because they wanted to “escape” from the increasing diversity.

Please note the other charter – less than 1/4 mile away – Compass – is 97% white and less than 9% low income – in other words, upper income white families wanted their own school(s) but paid for by taxpayers. EVen with these favorable demographics, both schools are financially in trouble, but the state would NEVER dare admit to a charter having issues..